BUXTON MEMORIAL DRINKING FOUNTAIN PROPOSAL (Hansard, 7 December 1955)

§ THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER)
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I do not think it is necessary for me to delay the House for more than a few minutes in explaining the purpose and intention of this Motion. Noble Lords will recall that during the passage through Parliament of the Parliament Square (Improvements) Act, 1949, the late Lord Simon moved an Amendment, which was accepted by this House, which laid down that if the Buxton Memorial Fountain was to be erected anywhere other than in Parliament Square an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament would be required. As your Lordships are aware, my right honourable friend the Minister of Works has now proposed, subject to the approval of Parliament, to erect this fountain at the southern end of the Victoria Tower Gardens. That is the whole purpose of this Motion and, as I feel that many noble Lords will recall the discussion which took place in 1949, I would formally beg to move the Motion.

§ EARL JOWITT
My Lords, I do not rise to oppose this Motion—indeed, I suppose it is inevitable—but having taken part in the discussion in 1949 I should just like to say a few words. In the first place, I think it essential that Mr. Buxton and the others who worked with him for the abolition of the slave trade should have a memorial, if anybody should, for the noble work which they did. But having said that, I personally very much regret that this particular memorial has to be put up. I have never heard anybody say that there was anything whatever to be said for it from the æsthetic point of view, and I cannot think that anybody could tolerate it for a moment. The late Mr. George Moore used to say what a good thing it would be if, when we had statues to commemorate famous men, we pulled them down to commemorate equally famous men. A plaque would be erected to commemorate so-and-so, and would be pulled down to commemorate someone else. I think there is a great deal to be said for that as a general proposition.
In this case, is it too late to hope that, although this memorial must be erected, the Royal Fine Art Commission might be asked whether anything can be done to make the statue appear less horrible æsthetically? I should be grateful if something could be done to avoid this blot—for I can only call it a blot—on the London landscape. The late Lord Simon was interested in it because, from the historical point of view, he used to call attention to the fact that Mr. Gladstone, on his way back to the House of Commons, would stop at the fountain, where it then was, to have a drink of water. He would never have stopped in the Victoria Tower Gardens to have a drink of water. Therefore, it seems to me that the matter should be considered from that point of view. I am not opposing the Motion in any way but, speaking purely personally, I should like to ask whether anything can be done by the Royal Fine Art Commission, or some such body, to render the fountain less disagreeable than it used to be.

VISCOUNT ESHER
My Lords, I find it rather surprising that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, should lay down so confidently that this Memorial Fountain is ugly. He must have some standard of judgment unknown to me, 1178 and I should not have suspected him of it, as he has hanging upon the walls of his House many pictures which he and I think very lovely, but which previous generations would have castigated in the very terms which he has been using about this Memorial Fountain. Perhaps he will impart it to me, for I have given many years of careful study to the arts and have never found an infallible and unchangeable standard of æsthetic value that is independent of time and fashion.
I was recently reading in a Trollope novel a passage in which the author takes it for granted that anybody buying a Queen Anne house would at once, owing to the fact that it was such a debased ugly and uncomfortable style, have to alter it into "good modern Victorian." During my lifetime I have watched what I may call the date of appreciation advance to cover many previously despised styles and periods, such as Regency and Gothic revival. The noble Earl, Lord Rosse, has a Gothic saloon at Birr Castle which about ten or fifteen years ago was considered the lowest possible taste, but which is now considered one of the most beautiful rooms in Ireland. The National Trust have acquired the immense Victorian-Norman castle at Penrhyn; and even the Albert Memorial and St. Pancras station, which, like the noble and learned Earl, I was brought up to consider to be hideous, have come into favour; and I have no doubt that it will not be long before this fountain of 1865, which is already admired by Mr. John Betjeman, will look different even in the eyes of the noble and learned Earl, if he lives long enough to see it.
What is the alternative—to build a memorial of our own, in these modern times which, to me, have all the appearance of a period of bad taste? Is the noble Earl so confident of our ability to produce a beautiful object? Has he looked round and found proof that we can do so? It seems to me that, whatever memorial we put up in place of this monument, it would probably be considered monstrous before twenty years have passed. Surely, then, if there are no rules, and we are in an atmosphere of doubt and difficulty, it is better to retain what was put up by those who wished to commemorate with an enduring monument the abolition of slavery. Personally, 1179 I congratulate the courage of the Minister of Works and the wisdom of his decision.

§ LORD MOTTISTONE
My Lords, the work of Samuel Sanders Teulon, who was the architect of the fountain which is being discussed to-day, has suffered much through changing ideas of taste. As a matter of fact, he was, I think, one of the most original of the Victorian architects, and it seems to me sad that so many of his works have perished, such as the churches of St. Thomas, Agartown, a great church just north of St. Pancras; St. Andrew, Stamford Street, beyond Blackfriars Bridge, which was completely destroyed in the war; and St. Stephen's, Haverstock Hill, which, with its massive and unusual tower, as many of your Lordships may know, survives. I welcome the opportunity to show some belated respect to his memory by the re-erection of this fountain, which he designed in collaboration with Mr. Charles Buxton. I do not agree that it could be described as ugly—appallingly ugly, I think the noble and learned Earl called it. The adjectives that I would apply to it would be "gay, elegant, fanciful and unforbidding"—a great contrast to much of the State sculpture. If it is re-erected where proposed, it will be a foil to Blomfield's obelisks on Lambeth Bridge and a delightful terminal feature at the end of the street that leads from St. John's Church, Westminster. I think it is a brilliant idea to place it where shown on the model which many of your Lordships may have seen, and I welcome the proposal that it should be re-erected exactly as it was, including the bright coloured tiles on the roof which were such a feature of the old fountain.

LORD REA
My Lords, partly to indicate that this is not just a Party question, I should like to support the noble and learned Earl who spoke from the Front Bench on my left. The noble Viscount behind me asked why we should replace this monument by something contemporary of our day. My reply to that is, "Why indeed should we?" After all, the fountain is not contemporary of the day of Buxton himself who, with Wilberforce, did his great work in the 1180 reign of George III. Why, then, should he be commemorated by a monument typical of the architecture of 1865?
It is argued that because of his great work he must have a monument near the Houses of Parliament. That point is set out strongly by the Antislavery Society whose ideals we all applaud. But there is already a monument to this gentleman quite near the Houses of Parliament in the North Aisle of Westminster Abbey, where he and Wilberforce have life-sized, and possibly more than life-sized, statues of themselves, with their work set out in the rather elaborate periods of that time. I trust that it will go on record that some of us admirers of Buxton do not favour putting this pink rococo wedding cake down in the quiet, peaceful green and grey of Victoria Tower Gardens.

§ THE EARL OF MUNSTER
My Lords, it is quite apparent, from the brief debate which your Lordships have had upon the Motion which stands in my name, that noble Lords in all parts of the House are of the opinion that this monument should be re-erected to record the great work of Mr. Buxton and others associated with him in the early part of the last century. I have no desire whatever to enter into the quarrel, if I may use the word, between the noble and learned Earl who leads the Opposition and the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, except to say this to the noble and learned Earl: that I doubt whether, with all the skill and devotion of the permanent officials of the Ministry of Works, my right honourable friend, or indeed the Royal Fine Art Commission could make this ugly, hideous erection more beautiful or attractive than it already is. Much could be said for employing a sledge hammer to obliterate this monument once and for all from the eyes and the sight of the younger generation, but I am not proposing that to your Lordships to-day. What I am proposing is the Motion in my name, which asks the House to approve that this monument, however it might be described, should be re-erected in the Victoria Tower Gardens for the benefit of all the people of the British Isles.